Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[danielpalos]

A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

 

[WinterBorn]

The SCOTUS was quite clear in its ruling in DC v. Heller.

"The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

"The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

"The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.

Not according to the US Supreme Court.

When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?

Never said they did.

"It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".

That changes the meaning more than this does:
A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

 

[danielpalos]

It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia.

Not according to the US Supreme Court.

When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?

Never said they did.

"It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".

That changes the meaning more than this does:
A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not according to the US Supreme Court.

When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?

Never said they did.

"It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".

That changes the meaning more than this does:
A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

 

[danielpalos]

When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?

Never said they did.

"It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".

That changes the meaning more than this does:
A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

 

[WinterBorn]

Never said they did.

"It is Only and Individual right to keep and bear Arms for well regulated militias of the People, who are the Militia" is not the same as "When did the Supreme Court claim the Militia is not the People?".

That changes the meaning more than this does:
A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

That changes the meaning more than this does:
A well regulated People being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The People=The Militia

It is still consistent; unlike the other interpretation.

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

 

[WinterBorn]

Revisit the ruling in DC v. Heller. It covers it quite nicely

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the ambiguous Part:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

What is meant by service in a militia.

The People are the Militia, whether organized and well regulated or unorganized and not-well-regulated. That which is not necessary to the security of a free State may be infringed by that is which is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Thus, only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed due to their necessity to the security of a free State, should we have to quibble in any legal venue.

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since the ruling stated that the right was unconnected with service in militia, it doesn't matter how you define "militia".

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

You may be missing the point. The People are the Militia. Only well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State; thus, defining that which is necessary to the security of a free State is relevant--in Any case of ambiguity.

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I stated the point. If the ruling is that the right is unconnected with militia service, there is no need to define "militia".

Whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as every able-bodied man or whether it is unconnected with a militia which is defined as left-handed, myopic, red-headed step-children, it is unconnected with the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".

 

[danielpalos]

There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only unconnected with militia service well regulated.

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".

Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

[LOki]

An 85 year old blind woman is connected to the militia??

You are stretching again. If the right is unconnected with service in a militia, then the definition of "militia" is not relevant to this discussion.

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".

Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, the People are the Militia.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".

Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ok, if you say so. But that is a different discussion. The SCOTUS has ruiled that the 2nd is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia.

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".

Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.

No need. There is, as I have shown you several times, an excellent explanation in Keller v. DC.

 

[danielpalos]

It isn't my say so, unlike the appeal to authority of DC v Heller. I am not appealing to ignorance of any Constitution.

Nor am I. I am agreeing with the SCOTUS in the meaning of the 2nd. And since that high court is the one tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is the law of the land. Regardless of your attempts to redefine what "keep" and "bear" mean or to define "militia".

Yes, you and those of your point of view are merely and Only Appealing to Ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Our Second Article of Amendment protects no Individual rights. Individual rights are secured in State Constitutions with no Militia requirement. Our Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose--A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive of Individual rights. The People who are the Militia is not inclusive of Individual rights.

That holding was merely the result of "venue shopping" by the Right and pleading so specially, as a result.

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[6] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[7]--Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is no appeal to ignorance of proper grammar and sentence construction... not in the service of the fallacy of your cause; not for avoiding political inconvenience.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause; regardless of sentence construction.

No need. There is, as I have shown you several times, an excellent explanation in Keller v. DC.

Any State is welcome to my argument in the public domain, should a State need to quibble in legal venues. I already know those of the opposing view don't have a better argument.

 

[turtledude]

Don't feed the troll. its like athletes' foot, the more you scratch it the more it spreads.

spray it with the Tinactin of benign neglect and this fungus will dry up and blow away to another board

 

[danielpalos]

Back from being banned for being clueless and Causeless?

 

[turtledude]

Daniel Trollus has been banned on several forums. On others we ignored him and he buggered off. I suggest we ignore him here. He craves attention and is a bot who does not think for itself